Director of Public Prosecutions v Alberto Bass (a pseudonym)[1]

In the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions v Alberto Bass, the dispute before the court revolved around the admissibility of certain evidence in a criminal trial. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Alberto Bass, sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision made by a lower court judge, who had ruled that certain evidence, which described the defendant by his clothing and companions rather than any physical characteristics, constituted 'identification evidence' and was therefore inadmissible under the Evidence Act 2008.

The legal issues before the court were the interpretation of the terms 'identification evidence' and 'visual identification evidence' as defined in the Evidence Act 2008, and whether the evidence in question fell within these definitions. The court was also required to consider whether the judge's decision to exclude the evidence was in the interests of justice, under the Criminal Procedure Act 2009. The prosecution also sought leave to add a particular to their proposed ground of appeal, which departed from the position they had adopted at the trial.

The court held that the evidence in question did indeed constitute 'identification evidence' and 'visual identification evidence' as defined in the Evidence Act 2008, and was therefore inadmissible under section 114(2) of that Act. The court also found that the judge's decision to exclude the evidence was in the interests of justice, and that the prosecution was permitted to depart from their position adopted at trial, in accordance with the principles set out in DPP v Waack. Accordingly, the court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal.

The final orders of the court were that the interlocutory decision of the lower court judge was set aside, and that the evidence in question was admissible in the criminal trial against the defendant. The prosecution was also granted leave to add the particular to their proposed ground of appeal.